couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Transactional _bulk_docs
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:11:45 GMT

On 5 Feb 2009, at 14:05, Robert Dionne wrote:
> I'm not very familiar with the ASF "process", excuse my ignorance,  
> but I find the IRC enormously useful and find mailing list threads  
> can be too unwieldy.

Check out http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html for
more about The ASF Way/.

Cheers
Jan
--


> I guess it's because I'm not a fan of top down design. I see the  
> code itself as the design, and the debugging, reworking, and  
> documenting of the code as the construction phase.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob
>
> Robert Dionne
> Chief Bittwiddler
> dionne@dionne-associates.com
> 203.231.9961
>
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> [sending second time, as I see my first is stuck in moderation, and  
>> I want to reply in a timely manner]
>>
>> Sure, ideally.
>>
>> But you can't have "everyone" together at the same time on IRC,  
>> where at the ASF, we define "everyone" to be, well, "everyone", not  
>> you and the 4 others on the PMC.
>>
>> I see 579 people on the user list.  I see 294 people on the dev  
>> list.  Just focusing on the dev list, that's 290 people, or 98.6%  
>> of people supposedly interested in CouchDB development, that had  
>> zero opportunity to see, review and participate in the discussion.   
>> Further, there's now zero chance that any future project  
>> participant can look back to understand design decision and  
>> philosophy.  No institutional memory.  Your goal, besides building  
>> a great software project, should be to get the community to the  
>> point where you can step back and do other things w/o material  
>> effect on the community, and that requires information like this to  
>> be somewhere accessible.
>>
>> And unlike Ted, I don't agree that a pointer to an IRC log is  
>> sufficient to represent a "done decision", and he may not have  
>> meant that anyway.  Sure, I can see a chat starting on IRC about a  
>> topic, but I'd hope that one person would force the move from IRC  
>> to the mail list - and at that point, maybe posting a pointer to  
>> the *initial* discussion log would be useful.  And after that,  
>> discussion is on the mail list.
>>
>> I think IRC logs are a very poor substitute to mail traffic (and  
>> yes, I grok the downside of async communications).  A primary one  
>> reason that they are very "in the moment" - if you are in the  
>> conversation, it's easy to stay in, but after, when things cool and  
>> the context of the moment isn't there, it's neigh impossible.  You  
>> also can't hit reply and quote a piece for others to see and  
>> discuss, further broadening the discussion.
>>
>> What got me engaged on this wasn't the decision itself (only  
>> because it was a secret decision), but -like Ted - the mode of  
>> operation.  It seemed that a very dedicated, engaged and interested  
>> community member had to privately petition the PMC for redress on a  
>> technical decision that none of us had any awareness of, nor a  
>> chance to review.  And IMO, from a guy that probably should be a  
>> committer and PMC member to boot!
>>
>> (By the way - from my count, not all PMC members are even on the  
>> PMC's private@ list, so I have *no clue* where project private  
>> discussion - like new committer candidates - are even discussed....)
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally yes, but real time communication with everyone together is  
>>> damn useful.
>>>
>>> -Damien
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uh, project decisions are supposed to be made in the public  
>>>> mailing lists...
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This decision was discussed and made on IRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Damien
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> can you point me to a reference to where the PMC made this  
>>>>>> decision?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm interested in the subject for it's own sake, and I'm also  
>>>>>> interested in figuring out where decisions are made in this  
>>>>>> project, since I didn't see this one go by on a mail list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geir, there was a decision made by the PMCs to change the  
>>>>>>> transaction model to support partitioned databases. It is a 

>>>>>>> change I am currently working on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Damien
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and original question #2?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/02/2009, at 12:02 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) where is this being forwarded from ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I sent it to the PMC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Antony Blakey
>>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
>>>>>>>>> Ph: 0438 840 787
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make
me  
>>>>>>>>> one with everything". He then pays the vendor and asks
for  
>>>>>>>>> change. The vendor says, "Change comes from within".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message